Wood v Shee

NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT

CITATION: Wood v Shee [2007] NSWSC 227

JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): 5900/06

HEARING DATE{S): 14 March 2007

JUDGMENT DATE: 14 March 2007

PARTIES:
Jemima Wood (P)
Nerada Shee (D1)
Community Alliance Credit Union Limited (D2)

JUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Not Applicable

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): Not Applicable

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Not Applicable

COUNSEL:
A Horvath (P)
No appearance (Ds)

SOLICITORS:
DLA Lawyers (P)
No appearance (Ds)

CATCHWORDS:
EQUITY [99] – Trusts and trustees – Classification of trusts in general – Implied trusts – Resulting trusts – Where intention presumed – Rebuttal of implication – Intention to benefit – Evidence of common intention.

LEGISLATION CITED:

CASES CITED:
Abbott v Clark [2006] NSWSC 130

DECISION:
Trust interest in whole fund declared in favour of one co-owner of bank account.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

WEDNESDAY, 14 MARCH 2007

5900/06 JEMIMA WOOD v NERADA SHEE & ANOR

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: In this matter the defendant does not appear. An order for substituted service has been made and it has been proved that the terms of that order have been carried out.
The proceedings concern the beneficial ownership of an account with the Community Alliance Credit Union Ltd (“the Credit Union”). The account is in the joint names of the plaintiff and the defendant, Nerada Shee. The evidence shows that the sum of $20,000, which was the sole deposit made to the account, was of a cheque in favour of the plaintiff from the Public Trustee in respect of her mother’s estate and the money was deposited in a joint account to protect it from access by the plaintiff’s then partner. The evidence shows that the defendant has no beneficial interest in the money. The facts have a general similarity to those I considered in Abbott v Clark [2006] NSWSC 130.
The terms of the account are that both parties are to sign any withdrawal, which the defendant has refused to do. The Credit Union therefore feels unable to release the money to the plaintiff or to change the name of the account, so that it is held solely by the plaintiff. But it has, by facsimile dated 18 May 2006 to the plaintiff’s solicitors, in effect invited the obtaining of an order requiring the payment of the $20,000 to the plaintiff.
In these circumstances, I propose to allow the summons to be amended to join the Credit Union as a second defendant and, without any further notice to the second defendant, to make orders declaring the plaintiff the sole beneficial owner of the funds in the account and ordering the second defendant to pay the proceeds of the account to the plaintiff. I shall order that the first defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.
**********

LAST UPDATED: 16 March 2007

The case of Wood v Shee involved the parties Wood, the appellant, and Shee, the respondent. The dispute centred around the nature of a trust in relation to certain property and whether it was a resulting trust or a gift. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The court was tasked with determining whether the appellant had successfully rebutted the presumption of a resulting trust in favour of the respondent.

The primary legal issue was whether the onus was on the appellant to prove an intention to benefit the respondent, thereby rebutting the presumption of a resulting trust. The court examined the evidence presented to determine if there was a common intention between the parties that the respondent would benefit from the property. This involved assessing the nature of the relationship between the parties, the contributions made, and any express or implied agreements.

The court concluded that the onus lay on the appellant to establish the necessary intention to benefit the respondent. Given the evidence presented, the court found that the appellant had not successfully rebutted the presumption of a resulting trust. As a result, the court held that the property in question was held on trust for the respondent. The court's decision was based on the principle that in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume a resulting trust when property is transferred to one party with an intention that they hold it on trust for another.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the property was held on trust for the respondent, thereby affirming the presumption of a resulting trust in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established